GWcheck Reduce against archives doesn't make much difference

I regularly run reduce against the PO to great effect, but it seems to not help much with archives.
Users claim to have deleted hundreds of MB's to GB's of email, but still the archive volume is peaking.

Should gwcheck reduce jobs be able to properly compact archives, as it does with the PO?

If not what are the best options within GW or using 3rd party software?

I see that GWAVA have Retain, but have not personally used it. The single instance storage of a messages and attachments looks nice.
Can anyone vouch for Retain, or recommend similar products.

--
Gordon
  • Hi Gordon,

    I'm not here to talk about Retain which, by the way, is a brilliant product. Instead your archive issue. Are your achives stored on NSS volumes by any chance?

    Please do let us know.

    Cheers,
  • laurabuckley;2397895 wrote:

    Are your achives stored on NSS volumes by any chance?


    Hi Laura, yes spot on there. Are you thinking Salvage is the culprit?

    I thought I read somewhere once, about older versions of GW, that running standalone gwcheck Reduce against an archive did little except small gains to the user and msg db's. Which seems to match up against the logs I saw showing recovered space of only a couple of hundred KB (max), and I've tested over about 6 archives.

    Do you normally get good Reduce results against archives?

    Thanks, Gordon
  • Hi Gordon,

    My experience is that salvage/purge is the culprit here. GWCheck does little to resolve this.

    I have found that I have to manually purge the folder on the NSS volume, or the whole volume if you like, before I'd see any reduction in space. This is particularly painful for us as we have space quotas on archive directories.

    Do let us know if this works for you - thanks :)

    Cheers,
  • I completed a full volume purge, and there was no difference.
    So I tested first hand - archive a 50MB email, watched the Archive vol free space drop.
    Then I deleted the archived email and emptied the archive trash, and saw the corresponding volume space increase again as expected.

    I suspect what is going on is that the users who were asked to clean out their 50-60GB archives have not understood about emptying the trash!! :-D
  • Hi Gordon,

    Of course user understanding of correct procedure can always be tricky ;)

    Cheers,
  • In article <gordon_mzano.6yp05b@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com>, Gordon
    mzano wrote:
    > Are you thinking Salvage is the culprit?


    This is a part of why we want salvage turned OFF for GroupWise volumes.
    Done best when creating the volume, as now there will be some leftovers
    that hopefully you won't trip over.



    Andy of
    http://KonecnyConsulting.ca in Toronto
    Knowledge Partner
    http://forums.novell.com/member.php/75037-konecnya
    If you find a post helpful and are logged in the Web interface, please
    show your appreciation by clicking on the star below. Thanks!

  • In article <gordon_mzano.6yoyrb@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com>, Gordon
    mzano wrote:
    > Should gwcheck reduce jobs be able to properly compact archives, as it
    > does with the PO?


    Note that you'll be doing manual jobs for this as the these archives are
    outside of the PostOffice so it normally doesn't operate against them.

    I have a client running Retain and they love it. Now they only keep 600
    days of messages in the live system, and can readily delete big
    attachements knowing they can pull them from Retain.




    Andy of
    http://KonecnyConsulting.ca in Toronto
    Knowledge Partner
    http://forums.novell.com/member.php/75037-konecnya
    If you find a post helpful and are logged in the Web interface, please
    show your appreciation by clicking on the star below. Thanks!

  • In article <gordon_mzano.6ypqjb@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com>, Gordon mzano
    wrote:
    > I suspect what is going on is that the users who were asked to clean out
    > their 50-60GB archives have not understood about _emptying_the_trash_!!


    Or they cleaned out lots of very tiny messages, leaving the problems ones
    around. What I've found works well is a search folder for all large
    messages, sorted by size and get the users to pay attention to the
    largest. That is usually good for a very quick few GBs gone from each of
    the piggiest of the users.
    I often just point users at http://www.konecnyad.ca/andyk/bigmail.htm or
    select bits for just them.


    Andy of
    http://KonecnyConsulting.ca in Toronto
    Knowledge Partner
    http://forums.novell.com/member.php/75037-konecnya
    If you find a post helpful and are logged in the Web interface, please
    show your appreciation by clicking on the star below. Thanks!